and people would come to both of us in airports, in coffee bars, in hotel lobbies, and say, "i have started a business because of you. you've changed my life". all these rooms have got stunning views. it was a life that took her foom a typing pool in leeds to a new york penthouse, and fabulous wealth. it was hard in the beginning, and i work hard. i'm not this powderpuff blonde that i'm portrayed as. i'm a tough woman who works hard, and i'm resilient. there were many echoes of her own life in these stories of hard work, determination and success. the books of barbara taylor bradford. barbara taylor bradford, who has died at the age of 91. and if you want to continue watching the bbc news at ten, please turn over to bbc one, or you can watch on the iplayer. next, it's newsnight.

it could be the biggest change in society in decades. which way will mps at westminster vote on the assisted dying bill? and will a new specific criminal offence of spiking reduce the number of attacks? we'll ask two people who've been the victim of it.

welcome to newsnight, where each weeknight we bring you insight and interviews live. your panel tonight: conservative mp for harwich and north essex sir bernard jenkin 32 years and counting, i understand? i'm afraid so! find 32 years and counting, i understand? i'm afraid so!— 32 years and counting, i understand? i'm afraid so!— i'm afraid so! and you are still surviving! _ and labour mp for north warwickshire and bedworth rachel taylor. welcome to you. this week, england and wales could see the most important change in legislation since gay marriage or, some say, the 1967 abortion act. the terminally ill end of life bill will be voted on by mps at westminster on friday. a separate bill is already

under discussion in scotland, plus politicians injersey and the isle of man have already backed plans to introduce assisted dying. the week before last, we went through details of the bill with a supporter and co—sponsor of it, the liberal democrats' christine jardine. in a moment, we'll talk to someone who is going to vote against it, conservative mp danny kruger. nick's here. at this stage, is there about which way this vote going to go? well, the house of commons has been sitting late. i'vejust made it here, and in the last few hours, i have heard very different views. one of the commons' senior official says to me they have no idea which way will go on friday. i have spoken to someone on the government side who will be familiar with how the government does its counting, though they are studiously neutral, and they are studiously neutral, and they say they believe this bill will scrape through on friday, and they say the reason for that is that all journalists are focusing on those cabinet ministers who are very prominently speaking out against it, and they say they think there will be a lot of ministers who support

it, so it will scrape through. but interestingly, talking to two newly elected labour mps in favour of this legislation, and they think it is beginning to struggle, because so many of the newly elected labour mps are saying it is too much and too soon. one of the minister is actually in favour of it, and who would have to take it through wear it to happen, they are suggesting they don't think it will go through, because there is such an ease. but i have to say, it is a respectful debate, but a row has broken out this evening. i understand a written complaint to the government chief whip sir allan campbell over the behaviour of lord falconer, the chancellor, who is in favour of this legislation. he had a go at the cabinet minister, who were —— at the cabinet minister, who were —— at the cabinet ministers who were speaking out against it, and particularly the justice secretary, and she was writing a letter to her constituents. they say that is absolutely what you should do and that lord faulkner was out of line. he will be on the programme later

this week. one complaint about this bill is the lack of time. some people say, to scrutinise it, and to read the details. if it passes on friday, what happens after that? how much time as there then to amend, etc? yes, opponents say it is happening too quickly. officials in the common say at second reading, the main debate on friday, it could go to five hours, more than a lot of government legislation gets. after that, if passed, it would go to committee stage, then it would be report stage and third reading in the house of commons at the same pace of a government bill. another criticism is, if it goes to a bill, kim led peter, the sponsor of the bill, would get to name the sponsor of the bill. —— kim ledbeater. thank you. let's let's talk to an mp opposed to this legislation, conservative mp for east wiltshire and shadow minister danny kruger. thanks very much for talking to us on newsnight.

you have said your objections to this bill are not based on your religious beliefs, so do explain what your objections are. thank you. i have two objections in broad terms. the first is to the bill itself, the text of it. i'm afraid now we have actually seen it in black and white, i respect the effort that kim and others have gone to to draw up a bill that is safe, but unfortunately, all the safeguards do not work. i'm sad to say there is nothing to stop people slipping through the cracks of this bill. there are a whole lot of categories of people who would fall in its scope, and the second objection is to the more general effect of the bill would have on the relationship between doctors and their patients, and the whole relationship we have with the state. if we decide it is acceptable for

government officials, people licensed by the state, doctors, to conclude that some people are better off dead, our whole understanding of the responsibility of care that the state and nhs has two as is changed. but this bill is not about medical professionals concluding who would be better off dead, but about the patient making the decision voluntarily, without pressure, without coercion. they have to be of sound mind, with terminal illness that cannot be reversed by treatment. those are the words of the bill, but how do you enforce those principles? the six months terminal illness, notoriously difficult to determine. no doctor can definitively say someone has six months to live, so you'd be asking a doctor to determine whether it would be acceptable to put an end to a person's lie. doctors make that assessment all the time, don't they? doctors make that assessment all the time. don't they?— time, don't they? they don't decide to kill peeple- _ time, don't they? they don't decide to kill people. they _ time, don't they? they don't decide to kill people. they will— time, don't they? they don't decide to kill people. they will not - time, don't they? they don't decide to kill people. they will not be - to kill people. they will not be decidin: to kill people. they will not be deciding to — to kill people. they will not be deciding to kill— to kill people. they will not be deciding to kill people. - to kill people. they will not be deciding to kill people. that i to kill people. they will not be deciding to kill people. that isj deciding to kill people. that is scaremongering. it is the individual patient who will decide. you scaremongering. it is the individual patient who will decide.— patient who will decide. you are askin: patient who will decide. you are asking the _ patient who will decide. you are asking the disc— patient who will decide. you are asking the disc that _ patient who will decide. you are asking the disc that would - patient who will decide. you are | asking the disc that would doctor patient who will decide. you are - asking the disc that would doctor to give you lethal drugs. you are askin: give you lethal drugs. you are asking the _ give you lethal drugs. you are asking the doctor— give you lethal drugs. you are asking the doctor to _ give you lethal drugs. you are asking the doctor to shorten l give you lethal drugs. you are i asking the doctor to shorten your da. ., , . asking the doctor to shorten your da. ., . , ,

da. you say that, but it is shortening _ da. you say that, but it is shortening life. _ da. you say that, but it is shortening life. these - da. you say that, but it isj shortening life. these are da. you say that, but it is - shortening life. these are people d in: shortening life. these are people dying anyway- _ shortening life. these are people dying anyway- yes. _ shortening life. these are people dying anyway. yes, but _ shortening life. these are people dying anyway. yes, but as - shortening life. these are people dying anyway. yes, but as i - shortening life. these are people dying anyway. yes, but as i say, | dying anyway. yes, but as i say, --eole dying anyway. yes, but as i say, peeple with _ dying anyway. yes, but as i say, people with diagnoses _ dying anyway. yes, but as i say, people with diagnoses of - dying anyway. yes, but as i say, people with diagnoses of six - dying anyway. yes, but as i say, - people with diagnoses of six months to live would be eligible for this procedure, and it is impossible to predict with any accuracy. so anyone who decided they wanted to end their lives could theoretically qualify for this, as has happened in other jurisdictions will stop so someone with an eating disorder could decide they are going to stop eating, find a doctor... hat they are going to stop eating, find a doctor- - -— a doctor... not true. not true. anorexia — a doctor... not true. not true. anorexia is — a doctor... not true. not true. anorexia is a _ a doctor... not true. not true. anorexia is a mental— a doctor... not true. not true. anorexia is a mental health . anorexia is a mental health condition, and that is not allowed in this bill. however, a physical condition that is consequent on your mental health condition would be allowed in mental health condition would be allowed , , , ., mental health condition would be allowed , , ., allowed in this bill. so if you are -h sicall allowed in this bill. so if you are physically ill— allowed in this bill. so if you are physically ill because _ allowed in this bill. so if you are physically ill because of - allowed in this bill. so if you are physically ill because of your - physically ill because of your mental health condition, you would qualify. so as with everywhere else, if you decide to refused i would refuse treatment or food... i'm sorry to interrupt, but i think this is wrong. this is about terminally ill people whose condition cannot be reversed by treatment. yes. ill people whose condition cannot be

reversed by treatment.— reversed by treatment. yes, do not have included _ reversed by treatment. yes, do not have included are _ reversed by treatment. yes, do not have included are going _ -- you have something called terminal anorexia. _ -- you have something called terminal anorexia. it - -- you have something called terminal anorexia. it is - -- you have something called i terminal anorexia. it is perfectly colourful possible for people with anorexia to qualify for assisted death, even though it is not what they intend, which i respect. it is not the intention. the problem is the implications. you cannot write in black—and—white a law that is safe that won't be progressively loosened and abused, and as i say,... loosened and abused, and as i sa ,... , ., ., ~ say,... there is no reason to think it would be — say,... there is no reason to think it would be progressively - say,... there is no reason to thinkl it would be progressively loosened. that would be down to parliament. in everyjurisdiction where an assisted dying law is enforced, the criteria, the eligibility of the access to it have widened. hat criteria, the eligibility of the access to it have widened. not true. yes, in access to it have widened. not true. yes. in oregon. _ access to it have widened. not true. yes, in oregon, the _ access to it have widened. not true. yes, in oregon, the eligibility - yes, in oregon, the eligibility criteria have widened. lilo. yes, in oregon, the eligibility criteria have widened. no, they haven't. criteria have widened. no, they haven't- yes. — criteria have widened. no, they haven't. yes, they _ criteria have widened. no, they haven't. yes, they have. - criteria have widened. no, they

haven't. yes, they have. the i criteria have widened. no, they i haven't. yes, they have. the time eriod haven't. yes, they have. the time period has — haven't. yes, they have. the time period has been _ haven't. yes, they have. the time period has been extended. - haven't. yes, they have. the time period has been extended. and i haven't. yes, they have. the time | period has been extended. and the data is also so poor that we don't know who is getting the treatment. but it has stayed since 1997 for people with a terminal illness. also people there with conditions you or i would not required as terminal including eating disorders and diabetes have qualified for an assisted death in oregon. but not under the terms of this bill. but i was pointing out in any jurisdiction where any bill like this is on the statute book, it gets widened. think about what we would be doing. we would think about some —— will be seeing some people have this new human right, but some don't. every so—called safeguard would quickly become the basis of a discrimination claim, especially under human rights law. lilo. discrimination claim, especially under human rights law. no, you are thinkin: under human rights law. no, you are thinking about _ under human rights law. no, you are thinking about canada, _ under human rights law. no, you are thinking about canada, where - under human rights law. no, you are thinking about canada, where it - thinking about canada, where it definitely has been widened. the scope has been widened because the courts there in force broad eligibility criteria derived from canada's existing charter of rights and freedoms. we don't have that here. well, we have the european convention of human rights, which would very quickly be deployed to

insist that some people who have this right... still a matter for parliament, though. not under the echr. that is one issue with it. it enables the courts to challenge parliament and say that actually, you are discriminating against a particular group, so i feel this bill would be immediately widened. but even if it weren't, as i say, there are loopholes in it as it currently stands, and anybody, even within the criteria of the bill, who is frail, disabled, close to the end of their life, would be obliged to have this conversation. no. there is no obligation obliged to hav